Socialism Sucks!

Socialism, or collectivism, is a consequence of a more fundamental philosophical mistake. This mistake is the opinion that you do not have a moral right to your own life, that you owe part of your life to others. This idea is called altruism, which is mistakenly thought to be a moral position. Well, the principle of altruism, if you wish to actually think about it, is one of self-sacrifice, that it is moral to sacrifice your life to others. This should be clearly distinguished from benevolence, charity or philanthropy. Let’s take destruction out of the picture all together. I’m not saying that it isn’t good to give to others, but it becomes immoral when it is given away at the expense of the self. And becomes all out criminal when it is given away against the will of the producer, by force. Taxes, no matter in what form, are FIRST and FOREMOST an attack against the rights of the individual. It is the individual that creates and produces. It is assault and theft to force him or her to give his or her money to the government, which will, by mob rule (democracy), decide where his or her hard earned money will go, minus the pay-offs that go to corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians and lobbyists. We are born, with a gun pointed at our heads, enslaved to each other and the Fed, in the name of goodwill towards others. This brings us all down and government up. And if you vote for the Republican or the Democratic party, it is your fault.

This universe operates according to physical laws, which are predictable and reproducible. And by our physical structure as human beings, our brains function similarly, in that every action we make is a result of neuronal processes that cannot be shared. We are autonomous organic machines. There is no collective brain, not literally. Metaphorically, sure. It is always through this individualistic nature that we relate to each other. And proper government is the necessary protection from one monopolizing bully to ensure we are left capable of taking care of ourselves and our decisions. Individuals function as such, by our nature, and liberty is being left free to do as you wish as long as someone bigger and stronger doesn’t infringe on your autonomy.

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number is self protection.”

---On Liberty, John Stuart Mills, 1859

There is only one thing that you can interfere with or limit the liberty of someone for, one goal, one value gives you the right to interfere and it is self protection. Nothing else besides protecting yourself, not getting your kids a good education, not getting the government to build you a road to get to work, not anything except protecting you from bodily harm and that which leads to it. This is the only principle that allows you to interfere with another’s autonomy. To justify doing something to someone else, of harm, you must prove that their actions were going to cause direct harm to another. Being free means being able to act in your own self-interest except if we are going to hurt someone. I should not be able to get money from someone I don’t know, who doesn’t need an education for my children, or a road near my house or healthcare my doctor gives me to pay for it from the money he or she earned, that money which is necessary to sustain their life.

And as for altruism, hogwash. Tricking the masses of humans into believing self-sacrifice is good is one of the greatest evils of religion and theology (the study of one particular metaphor) that there is. Every decision every human being makes is always, every time, one based on, at least perceived, self-interest. Sustained sacrifice of an individual would necessarily result in their demise. People do good for others because it is in their perceived self-interest.

Agreeing that we all share in each other’s individuality is what socialism, of any kind and percentage, is suggesting. It is irrational and results in slavery. Every good thing that happens in the economy does so because of the individuals that did the work, not because of governmental oversight and restriction. The one necessary monopolizer of retaliatory force has no business in the lives of individuals, except to protect them from impingements on their liberty.

A proper, or moral, government serves only to function as a single monopolizer of retaliatory physical force, to protect us from criminals, foreign aggressors and settle domestic disputes in law courts. Schools, roads and medical care, like everything else, except police, military and judges, should come from the only way they can, private enterprise, i.e., individuals producing, instead of the government redistributing wealth, bringing everyone down by taking from those with ability and giving to those with need. The moral limited government can certainly be financed with voluntary taxation, donations or the government itself creating money honestly, like thousands of private companies do every day. I, sure as hell, would pay for the protection of the government.

But, what of the starving unfortunate people in the world? I’m sorry, but because someone is hungry, does not mean I have a moral responsibility to give them my bread. If you wish to truly help these people, good for you. I recommend that you do not sacrifice yourself to do it and I certainly do not wish for you or anyone else to force me to chip in. I’ll do so on my own, after I’ve made my first million. That would come sooner if the irrational people of this country would let me keep that which I have earned, instead of taking nearly 40% of it and giving to corporate CEO’s, banks, Iran or some community in BFE to save a field which some rare turtle happens to use as a path from their mating area to their nursery.

And if you think that Roosevelt’s New Deal, in the 1930’s, actually helped the economy, well then, you need to go back and research it yourself, instead of taking the word of some postmodernist university professor. It was the WWII, the military industrial complex war machine that Eisenhower warned us of , in his presidential farewell speech in 1961, and hard working Americans that got us out. Our country was never more economically successful and thriving, without artificial "bubbles" created by governmental price setting and special interest subsidies, as it was pre-income taxes, before the very early 20th century. We are still now, less and less, reaping the benefits of the industrial revolution and the American capitalistic work ethic created in the 18th and 19th centuries. The more the producers are penalized for producing and the poor are enabled by a welfare state, the quicker we will return to dictatorship and subsequent revolution. If we empower people, by valuing individual rights, to earn and keep their own shit, standard of living would go up and the ignorant and lazy would stop multiplying as much. We enable them with the welfare state. The government cannot supply value or virtue, only make them possible by providing freedom.

Nowhere in The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution does it suggest that we should be forced to give up some of our individual rights to give to the so-called good of the people. The reason we became an independent nation to begin with was to be able to keep what we make and not have to answer to some arbitrary authority. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would be shitting in their pants right now if they were here to see this crap.

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Atheism is a challenge to the establishment not a flake of paint on the side of the barn the way homosexuality is. As for libertarianism there are too many vested interests, I believe, to see a voluntary change in the guard. And revolutions inevitably have internal power struggles with the "iincumbents" more interested in perpetuating themselves than instituting reform. Besides the masses would be craving jobs and security not a free for all survival of the fittest.

Is the word unison or synchronisity sp? I know what you are talking about especially with schools of fish. Oh my name is not Michael T. Maybe he has the answer.

The only way to make it happen is to purchase a large island and invite libertarians to join you in the same way mormons invited Europeans to join them. The greater the heterogeneity of ideas and means of the libertarians the lower the chance of experimental success, methinks.

If you are thinking revolution in America will result in libertarian government, I say never happen GI.

Interesting point - but we are social creatures - in that it is in our nature and our survival strategy to work in groups rather than individually. Therefore it is natural for us to want to have shared rules if you like.

I think of Lions - where you have the pride which is populated by females infants and usually one male lion - then the other males are rogue and do as they please, but need to fight much more. There are different rules in each circumstance - the females work together to feed the infants - I think the male lion, although not doing any work to get the food, has first dibs on it generally for some reason - I suppose that's the bonus he has for being the strongest to fight for his position to mate with the females with other males. Whereas the other males who are younger or not as strong just have to fend for themselves. Where am I going with this - I think there are different systems for our different circumstances also. You are at the moment, as far as I'm aware a single male - so your rules are going to be different than mine, who is a female with children. We are going to want different things because we have different needs.

If we didn't look after our children we would soon die out as a species - therefore I think it's very reasonable to believe that we do naturally want to care for our children. But that instinct isn't in all of us - it's not in ones who don't yet have children for example.

Different systems of living would have different results for people in different circumstances - so I would say that your system might be ideal for you, but might not work so well for me. And this being the case how do we agree on a system for all of us? As we now live in such large countries we have a few of everyone to consider. We live in democracies and so everyone will want their own best system - but each system is going to conflict with others systems - so how is the problem resolved?

To my mind what we end up with is a system that is a hotch potch of all the best - which means that it's dysfunctional for any individual but kind of works generally most of the time for most of the people - but not all. Like they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time. But again, I do support the idea that any system might work - but it wouldn't be pure, humans with needs would bend it to meet their own circumstantial varying needs.

Coercing children is the job and businesas of parents. Coercing adults should be against the law, under all circumstances (except lawful retaliatory force). Protecting some people's individual rights cannot possibly interfere with protecting another's individual rights. It most certainly would interfere with a socialists perceived right they have to other people's life, like a right to education, heathcare, a job and whatever other abuse of personal liberty they think is justified. IOW, no person has a right to anything but to be left alone to do what they wish as long as it does not interfere with someone else's autonomy.

Michael - it's interesting that you cite non coercion as your basic premise. I had the idea about non coercion being the way to go with my parenting. But I've found that I just can't do it - that might be because I'm just not good enough at it - or that it doesn't give me enough success to maintain the use of it - or that my personality doesn't allow for it - I'm sure I could conduct a small study on the matter - but what I've found is that using coercion with my kids as a planned event has the best out come. If I am to be non-coercive I end up getting so frustrated or I am so permissive that the kids and or myself don't get our needs met. Needs for peace of mind, education, a balance of learning, physical exercise etc.

So although I've read non-violent communication by Marshall B Rosenberg and he does indeed advocate that a totally non-violent approach to the whole of life is possible and also desirable - I haven't try as I might been able to implement that into my own life.

So I question the plausibility to have a totally non-coercive system - I'm not sure that it is indeed possible. For example if you are looking to protect some people's individual rights - but that means that others can't have some rights for themselves - how do you resolve that problem? You could go for mediation - but what if both sides are set on winning their position -and both prepared to be violent to gain their rights met - surely then the only way is to request compliance and then protect the rights of one or the other.

I think that violence is inherent in life in the sense that to get our needs met we will be violent to get them met. Or aim to coerce others to help us get them met.

That's fair enough that you don't take any responsiblity to help anyone how ever much need they might be having. I agree - and I don't take responsibility for her welfare ultimately, but I will help where I can with the skills that I have and the time I have available. Which I think is what most people would do if coming into contact with her - and so in that sense it doesn't much matter what system we have, I trust that humans will help out - and so I don't think we need one system or another - I think humans are very adaptable - and they will change their behaviour and adjust according to the system currently in place.

In that sense also, I believe that it's the adaptable that will do well - as they work out how to get the most out of the system they find themselves rather than wish for another.

You are obsessed with this nature thing. If I wish to help an infected kid with some antibiotics, GREAT!!! Who cares if it is natural. My point is not--> to let suffering occur at all costs, if it is natural. I am saying that by the nature of the human mind, society will only be free, maximally prosperous, and moral, if we uphold a person's right to all of their own life as long as their wishes, say to help an infected child, doesn't impinge on another's control over their own life. We do not need to institutionalize violence in order to help the needy. If you wish to help the needy, GREAT!! Why must you force people to do it, especially when it doesn't even work to begin with?

Alice/Glen,

Below is a comment I posted on another, very similar, 'debate' I am having on AN; it might help with your issues with how would this be done or what would it look like:

First of all, I do not believe that a political decision should be allowed to influence anything other than who will and how they will protect our individual rights. To keep every individual free from coercion. Second, no, the moral thing is not to let people starve to death. Nor is it to force other people to help. As I have said before, philanthropy and charity, imo, would flourish even more than they do now. I can imagine an organization designed to help people like this, soliciting voluntary contributions perhaps, or starting a business whose profit is dedicated to starving people, with a logo and brand that consumers can be proud they have contributed to what they perceive as a good cause. And, why they are starving has no imapct whatsoever, imo, as to whether or not you force someone to help, as a rule of the land (institutionalized violence), but would certainly matter as to whether I make a decision to help them personally. This is partially why it should be left up to the individual to help or not, as they see fit. And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes. That is unfair mob rule. The mob is only proper in deciding who and how our individual rights will be protected or what objective laws will be enforced.

And Alice, determination and choice are the same thing. We've gone over that. Whether or not your friend is a good person, unfortunate or whatever does not change that it is not my responsibility to help her. I might because I would like to do so, for my own rational self-interest, but to institutionalize making other people help her is not moral. Two wrongs don't make a right. Institutionalized violence is not the moral answer to human suffering.

Hi Michael - I can see that charity would grow - especially in American culture as they have a lot of that sort of giving any way - as part of their culture - private charity isn't nearly as strong in England or Australia to my knowledge. But I can see that it might work better even - in terms of those that were giving would be giving willingly - and therefore the reciever might have a better experience and more genuine care. The way it is now she is getting care but it's from employees who are doing their job, but might not like their job etc - this could well be the case in your world too - but the factors that have changed are that it's not a dispassionate government running things - but someone using their own money who is invested in it working for good and not evil - so I can see that it is part of human nature to want to help and care for others less fortunate - so I can see that it doesn't matter too much what system we have. I think mainly why countries are the way they are is reflective of the culture more than the system - although it's a chicken and egg situation also. For example you can have poor and rich who like tidy streets and make effort to clean them, and you can also have rich and poor who don't care a crap and don't take pride in how their street looks also. So it's not just a system that makes a place.

Regarding my friend - it is a tragic case - in that she and her sisters suffered sexual abuse from family members when children and it was covered up by the grandmother and mother and denied - this started off a chain of events in her life that lead to the situation she is currently facing. It wasn't her choosing but it was her determined path - so she has basically developed a way of cutting ties and only keep a small few friends who she trusts. She didn't learn trust as a child and has had to work at it. There are people like this in the world, who through no direct fault of their own end up in situations that you might not imagine possible - or might blame them for getting into - but would that be a fair statement?

Caring for someone else does give the carer something - and this is why charity works - it gives the carer a sense of joy at being able to give others some thing extra - to contribute to someone else's life in a positive way.

I can understand your complaint with the current governmental system and how it is set up. Do you think perhaps that such a system of control and forced compliance stems from fears about what would happen if you let humans free to do as they please? Perhaps it is based in an inherent believe that humans are - left to their own will - bad and irresponsible - and therefore need to be made to be compliant in order to get the basic things working efficiently? Or perhaps it's more to do with such a large number of people and getting more efficiency - in that when dealing with such large numbers of people - it might be hard to all co-operate effectely enough for everyone to take advantage of all the skills and services that might be offered by a collective, as opposed to each small group doing things their own way. As I imagine that with your system things would develop regionally - meaning that each region - undefined as such, but just naturally would develop it's own unique way of doing things, based on the individuals living there. This would mean that you couldn't rely on things being the same from one place to the next, which would mean that local knowledge would become way more valuable - and people in power especially might start to feel quite out of control and worried about keeping places in law and order - because the social, cultural and political landscape would be so peculiar to each region.

I suppose my point is, that once you change a system it has so many implications that are exponential over time in the direction that it takes you.